I suggest you go back and read what I said about the Apollo footage which I have with blue sky showing through the windows.

This is the problem. You want to limit the discussion of the phenomenon to Apollo 13, ignoring all the other pertinent data. Do you think blue haze occurred only on Apollo 13? If the same phenomenon occurs on other missions, then your explanation must account for those other missions.

but if someone more qualified than you had made sure that all those stats and figures were correct before they were committed to paper, would you be any the wiser?

But if someone more qualified than me made sure all those stats and figures and diagrams and equations were correct before they were committed to paper, then they'd have a viable moon landing program.

You seem to be under this odd delusion that science can be bald-facedly faked for thirty years. You seem to think it can appear correct to any degree of inspection, but somehow not be actually correct.

When did I say that NASA has hardly released anything?

Earlier. That may have been in conjunction with Mars data though, but I recall you had backpedalled.

Let's clear this up. Do you argue that NASA has purposely withheld from public view significant portions of its material relating to Apollo? Yes or no.

With all these jobs you reckon you've done, you must be ancient!

No, just busy.

The lunar orbiter in your estimation could not take as clear pictures as the Apollo and yet pictures were posted here that showed the opposite.

Then you must be blind.

The lines on the orbiter frame by the way is due to scanning techniques as is shown on the Malin site. thought you would know that?

I did not make the argument that the vertical lines were inherent to the photograph. That was someone else's argument. I have not commented on the Orbiter photos except to note that they were in black and white.

Your 'white specks' are not on the camera lens because the same formation appears in different areas of the lens on the pictures.

Then I have misunderstood your argument. I'll check back on that.